Contract for service / Contract of service

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Isn't it quite normal for a contract to mention who they are expecting to turn up? If it doesn't, the whole RoS is moot because you have to have someone TO substitute, surely?

I don't think its unreasonable for a contract to mention a named individual, or at least an individual that YourCo expects to work on the contract on a day to day basis or be the main point of contact for YourCo, purely in the name of providing continuity of service and so ClientCo knows who to speak to.

I use the PCG contracts and I do include my name in the schedule, just the same as I also have a name of an individual at ClientCo who is acting as the primary contact.

Of course, this is all on the assumption that you have a good RoS clause, which the PCG contracts do have.

[suityou01]

Not that I've seen. I would expect the name of a designated representative to be mentioned in a schedule which is attached to the contract terms and conditions, but I don't think I've ever seen it in the contract itself.

YMMV.

Even murkier than that.

The term Company is defined at the pimp.

The term Contractor is defined as MyCo.

The term Client is defined as ClientCo.

The term representitive referenced throughout but is not defined, but stated as me in the schedule (which forms part of the contract).

No subsitution clause. None allowed.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Even murkier than that.

The term Company is defined at the pimp.

The term Contractor is defined as MyCo.

The term Client is defined as ClientCo.

The term representitive referenced throughout but is not defined, but stated as me in the schedule (which forms part of the contract).

No subsitution clause. None allowed.

Being named as a representative of YourCo is not a problem. Because that's exactly what you are. If you were being named as the Contractor I'd be more worried.

You can push for a substitution clause but as I mentioned before it's unlikely to help you in an IR35 defence if there was never any reasonable expectation of it being honoured.

The best advice you've had so far, should you choose to take the contract, is to ensure you have cover in place. DirtyDog makes a point that some insurance policies might have certain requirements but can't you just get a PCG+ membership? I'm sure as long as you've done your due diligence then the PCG would be happy to defend you in the unlikely event it came to that.

[DirtyDog]

The best advice you've had so far, should you choose to take the contract, is to ensure you have cover in place. DirtyDog makes a point that some insurance policies might have certain requirements but can't you just get a PCG+ membership? I'm sure as long as you've done your due diligence then the PCG would be happy to defend you in the unlikely event it came to that.

PCG+ will fund the cost of an investigation; Qdos will fund the cost of an investigation plus any penalties and tax owed. In this case, I know which one I'd want to have in place

[suityou01]

Being named as a representative of YourCo is not a problem. Because that's exactly what you are. If you were being named as the Contractor I'd be more worried.

You can push for a substitution clause but as I mentioned before it's unlikely to help you in an IR35 defence if there was never any reasonable expectation of it being honoured.

The best advice you've had so far, should you choose to take the contract, is to ensure you have cover in place. DirtyDog makes a point that some insurance policies might have certain requirements but can't you just get a PCG+ membership? I'm sure as long as you've done your due diligence then the PCG would be happy to defend you in the unlikely event it came to that.

Let's see.

I have a contract that QDos have failed comprehensively for IR35.
I have an agency that won't change the contract.

Who will insure my company if I sign this? The very fact QDos have failed it is evidence enough for any insurer to wash their hands of it.

It's a bit like this. I go to buy a car. The AA come out and inspect it, and tell me it is not roadworthy. I ask the garage to fix the problems with the car before I buy it and drive it away. They refuse.

You are asking me to buy the car, get insured and drive about in it. First serious prang and I can't see the insurers paying out, can you?

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

PCG+ will fund the cost of an investigation; Qdos will fund the cost of an investigation plus any penalties and tax owed. In this case, I know which one I'd want to have in place

Given HMRC's success rate vs the PCG's success rate, I think I could live with the former.

[suityou01]

PCG+ will fund the cost of an investigation; Qdos will fund the cost of an investigation plus any penalties and tax owed. In this case, I know which one I'd want to have in place

Did not know that. Awesome, thanks for sharing

[suityou01]

Given HMRC's success rate vs the PCG's success rate, I think I could live with the former.

Did not know that. Awesome, thanks for sharing

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Let's see.

I have a contract that QDos have failed comprehensively for IR35.
I have an agency that won't change the contract.

Who will insure my company if I sign this? The very fact QDos have failed it is evidence enough for any insurer to wash their hands of it.

It's a bit like this. I go to buy a car. The AA come out and inspect it, and tell me it is not roadworthy. I ask the garage to fix the problems with the car before I buy it and drive it away. They refuse.

You are asking me to buy the car, get insured and drive about in it. First serious prang and I can't see the insurers paying out, can you?

The PCG does not offer an insurance policy. They take out their own insurance policy which enables them to defend their members.

If you're unsure as to whether they would defend you, why not give them a ring and ask them?

[suityou01]

The PCG does not offer an insurance policy. They take out their own insurance policy which enables them to defend their members.

If you're unsure as to whether they would defend you, why not give them a ring and ask them?

You still don't see this as a no-brainer.